**Note: I know this is late but it took a lot of research. If you see any mistakes, let me know.**
Drew Petzing’s offense is probably best understood as a modern, Shanahan-influenced system that has gradually developed its own personality. His NFL background runs through Minnesota and Cleveland, including several years working under Kevin Stefanski, before he became Arizona’s offensive coordinator in 2023. The core principles are recognizable: establish a credible running game, force defenses to honor play action, move players around formations, and create relatively clean reads for the quarterback. Petzing also wants the offense to be able to operate from both shotgun and under center rather than becoming structurally dependent on either.
That was immediately apparent in Arizona. Kyler Murray had spent more than 90% of his snaps in shotgun from 2020 through 2022, but Petzing dramatically increased his under-center usage. Arizona also became one of the NFL’s heavier play-action teams. Early in 2023, the Cardinals were using play action on more than 30% of their passes, and Murray himself said the under-center game made the ball harder for defenders to locate.
The running game was the foundation. Arizona ranked fourth in rushing in 2023, and seventh in 2024, averaging more than 5.0 yards per carry in both seasons. Petzing used outside zone concepts, but he was never simply an outside-zone coordinator. Arizona incorporated duo, counter, power, pin-and-pull concepts, split flow, tight-end movement, and variations designed to change the blocking picture without necessarily changing the formation. The Cardinals also used considerable 12 personnel, and occasionally 13 or 22 personnel, allowing tight ends to become blockers, receivers, insert players, or motion pieces.
The 2025 collapse to 31st in rushing is therefore worth viewing cautiously. Arizona dealt with major injuries at quarterback, running back, and along the offensive line. Petzing responded by throwing more, and the Cardinals still finished seventh in passing yards. That is not necessarily evidence of an elite passing system, but it is evidence that Petzing is willing to depart from his preferred structure when personnel dictate it.
In Detroit, the most interesting question is how much Petzing borrows from the offense he inherited rather than simply installing Arizona’s playbook. Jared Goff is an excellent fit for Petzing’s under-center, play-action concepts, while Jahmyr Gibbs gives him a far more dangerous movable piece than he had in Arizona. Sam LaPorta can fill the multipurpose tight-end role Trey McBride occupied, and Amon-Ra St. Brown can be shifted among the slot, reduced splits, stacks, bunches, and occasional backfield alignments.
The run game could become particularly interesting. Detroit already has an offensive line accustomed to marrying zone, duo, gap, and pull concepts, so there is little reason for Petzing to narrow the menu. Instead, I would expect more counter, pin-and-pull, and tight-end insertion concepts layered onto what Detroit already does well. Petzing has repeatedly emphasized being physical, multiple, and difficult to defend, which sounds very much like the existing organizational philosophy.
That brings the comparison to Ben Johnson. Johnson’s great strength was not simply creativity. It was multiplicity from sameness. Detroit could line up in virtually the same formation, use the same motion, show the same initial blocking action, and produce four or five completely different outcomes. A split-zone run might later become bootleg action. The bootleg might produce a crossing route one week, a tight-end leak the next, and eventually a throwback to a player whom the defense had been conditioned to ignore. Johnson frequently spent several plays establishing a defensive reaction before calling the play designed specifically to punish that reaction.
The result was an offense in which formations often told the defense less than they appeared to tell it. Johnson could align in heavy personnel and spread the formation, or align three receivers tightly and run directly at a light box. He also used motion not merely to identify coverage, but to alter leverage, create blocking angles, change gaps after the defense had declared itself, and disguise the ultimate concept. His plays were connected to one another almost like branches of the same tree.
Petzing showed some of that in Arizona. Joshua Dobbs specifically described the Cardinals as running many concepts from similar looks, and Petzing stressed that play-action mechanics had to look and feel exactly like the corresponding run. That is the same fundamental idea. The difference is degree. Arizona generally did not demonstrate Johnson’s almost obsessive tendency to build counters upon counters, particularly in the passing game.
Interestingly, there is evidence Petzing may be moving further in that direction in Detroit. During training camp, Goff described the new offense as running things that look the same but are different, specifically noting how that can manipulate a defense.
That may ultimately be the best version of the Petzing hire. Detroit does not need him to recreate Ben Johnson play for play. It needs him to preserve Johnson’s central lesson: make several plays indistinguishable until the defense is forced to guess. Petzing already believes in that principle. If he can combine his physical, varied running game with the formation multiplicity, sequencing, and layered counters that made Johnson’s Detroit offense exceptional, the transition could be considerably smaller than the change in coordinator suggests.